Well there we are - back in the fray again.One or two observations to keep the ball rolling -Producing questionable polls every other week may give employment to the pollsters but has very little import to what happens in 6 month's time. All it does is give succour to those it favours to keep their spirits up.Unless, of course, some of the population like to be on a bandwagon and go along with the herd, but that is a sad reflection on the human race if it is effective.I have delved deeply into the blog behind the poll results which our esteemed (but biased) administrator gave us, and would make the following observations - 1) it consisted of a few stalwart "dyed in the wool" YES supporters, arguing the toss about what went wrong, squabbling about future tactics, and using abbreviations which only they, and their cohorts are privy to.2) They take delight in defaming, ridiculing, and generally insulting the new leader of Labour in Scotland - this does not seem to be in the spirit of "goodwill" at the present time - or any other time.It is unfortunately a fact of political life (and a basic fault in human nature) that those involved in the political process constantly look for, and exploit weaknesses and failures in their opposition rather than concentrating on promoting their own personal agenda for the benefit of humanity.Recently, in a private message to our administrator, I mentioned that the "forum" had petered out of activity and he suggested that it would hot up in the New Year, but he has taken the bull by the horns, and jumped the gun with this salvo. Who knows who will come out of the woodwork? in response to these postings (apart from Gavin Rae) but maybe someone, somewhere, will dispute (or hopefully agree) with my remarks and keep this thread alive.

Agreed that the purpose of opposition is to scrutinise any proposals, but currently in both Westminster and Holyrood the public perception is that it is a slanging match and as soon as one party makes a proposal, the opposition immediately leap into rubbish it.I have never yet heard a proposal being forwarded and the opposition averring that it is a good idea and saying that they will support it wholeheartedly.They may be palsy-walsy behind the scenes but the public persona is of automatic confrontation.They are there to debate and legislate - not to bicker and rubbish each other.The antics of grown adults (and this includes the back benchers) for example during Prime Minister's Questions at Westminster is a disgrace and reminiscent of a primary school playground dispute.

I quite agree with your last post Jim, but surely the problem over the last thirty years is the the standard of debate in Westminster has been very poor. Nor do we get the statesmanlike speeches of old that could win public confidence ( like him or loath him the old warhorse Winston had a talent for it, and somewhat more recently Jimmy Reid's "RAT" speech must be a masterclass in the art. )

I wonder whether the modern "media" has something to do with this decline and the domination of the dreaded soundbite ( If I hear Jim ( the Egg) Murphy utter " a fresh start " one more time --!! Achh!! ).

I know you'll say Holyrood is just as bad but how do you explain the rise of the SNP?. Surely they must be doing the job correctly as they have managed against all the odds ( and the "British Establishment") to tap into something that has motivated a large percentage of Scots to move towards the idea of self-rule, myself included.

Holyrood is almost as bad for slanging matches - probably a bit more civilised and polite - and not the juvenile antics of back benchers, but the lack of integrity of various leaders who have left under a cloud does nothing for the general standing of politicians as a whole - almost as bad as the continuing UKIP woes.reason, I suspect, for the current surge in SNP membership (which might just be a temporary blip) was not because everyone had suddenly seen a vision of utopia.The relative voting intentions on the day that the referendum was called were broadly similar to the final result.The YES campaign did make some ground in the latter stages, but this was because of a rather negative showing by the NO side, and Cameron's (misguided and probably dismissive) mistake of not allowing "devomax" on the ballot paper. And it was only it's re-introduction into the equation by G. Brown that righted the balance.The surge in SNP support is from dis-satisfied YES voters who have really nowhere else to turn for solace.I notice that you have slipped into the vernacular and refer to "eggs" Murphy which is next door to name calling - I had placed you higher up the pecking order than that.Usually the advent of name calling is a sign that the recipient is perceived as a threat and must be ridiculed at all costs to defuse their ability, and a sign of insecurity on the part of the name caller.

Usually the advent of name calling is a sign that the recipient is perceived as a threat and must be ridiculed at all costs to defuse their ability, and a sign of insecurity on the part of the name caller.

Usually the advent of name calling is a sign that the recipient is perceived as a threat and must be ridiculed at all costs to defuse their ability, and a sign of insecurity on the part of the name caller.

Usually the advent of name calling is a sign that the recipient is perceived as a threat and must be ridiculed at all costs to defuse their ability, and a sign of insecurity on the part of the name caller.

I think 'Project Fear' - not me name calling - is still fearful of all things SNP.

Alex Salmond was often referred by MSM as 'Hitler' and his followers as 'Nazis' - I already posted about my greeting from one of 55!

Unsurprisingly, and disgracefully, Nicola Sturgeon is now on the receiving end of similar insults directed at her looks and dress sense!

Is this all MSM and MNM can come up with to justify their case for retaining the union - A 'Union of Equals!? Mmmmm!

The more things change - the more they stay the same

Are you not thinking of changing your avatar Jim - I think you're well and trully off the fence now.

I think my new one is quite fetching - attractive, gentle, welcoming!

As it was me who suggested your last one do you want me to suggest another for you?

In answer to all these replies to my tentative observations.1) What is it about the YES brigade who choose intimidating avatars? (Bill McDicken excepted). Do they think that it gives more gravitas to their pronouncements. or a more commanding presence to their image. The addition of a wooly hat to Che Guevera is seasonal certainly but does nothing to improve the facial expression underneath.2) It is very kind of the skeletal ghoul to offer me a replacement avatar, but I am quite happy with the present variety - it fulfils the purport of my presence here - to question the more outrageous outpourings emanating from sundry posters.3) Donny C. Your use of abbreviations and obscure references may be music to the club, but to outsiders (and I hope there are others beside myself) it does nothing further for the debate if we haven't a clue what you are on about4)Name calling - I was completely unaware of the various ones cited by DC - obviously they must have been engendered by the fanatic sub-culture (on both sides) who find solace in this kind of petty behaviour. But it is only in the postings of some contributors to the likes of the blog that our administrator refers us to at the start of this whole caboodle, that these defamatory expressions rear their ugly head.5) B McD - I have always considered you to be a fair minded person - not a fanatic despite the large YES on your garage, and will continue with that impression.6) All these remarks are unfortunately of a personal nature to the recipients of the previous postings, but it might be worth debating whether the lack of anonymity makes for more honesty and the amelioration of a more acerbic tongue, or whether it makes for blandness and less interesting reading. For, after all, we are hopefully catering to a wider readership than the current 4 posters.

. . . we are hopefully catering to a wider readership than the current 4 posters.

During the ten years that I ran this forum with anonymous posting many people (certainly a lot more than four) said to me that they didn't feel comfortable with anonymous posting and would be much more likely to post themselves under their real name.

Sadly, when anonymous posting was abolished very few of them stepped up to the plate. Maybe they have nothing to say.

There is no chance of going back to anonymous posting as I have no intention of allowing myself or anyone else to become a target once again for faceless cowards, trolls and bullies, as happened far too many times before.

Your use of abbreviations and obscure references may be music to the club, but to outsiders (and I hope there are others beside myself) it does nothing further for the debate if we haven't a clue what you are on about

MSM - Mainstream Scottish Media

MNM - Mainstream National Media..... both terms used, usually on social media but not necessarily, in the 2/3 years of referendum debates!

Quote:

to question the more outrageous outpourings emanating from sundry

'Outrageous' I'll leave you to be offended by that one Nick!

Quote:

B McD - I have always considered you to be a fair minded person - not a fanatic despite the large YES on your garage, and will continue with that impression

Are you therefore suggesting Jim, that there are other posters on here not fair minded and fanatical. Dangerous stuff Jim!

Quote:

All these remarks are unfortunately of a personal nature to the recipients of the previous postings

Whatever you are referring to I don't know - I see nothing of a slanderous nature here!

The change of avatar I was suggesting for you was another attempt at ,obviously now, poor humour!

Nick as we've got the bloody snow on here again and it is the season of goodwill and bah humbug would it be possible to put a Santa hat - in red and white, but not a UJ - on my somewhat fetching cuddly cranium to see if that will lighten the tone! Feel free to doctor and/or photoshop!

Another poor joke Jim!

I agree wholeheartedly with Nick re anonymous postings. Some of the comments made on this forum in the earlier days were scandalous and possibly actionable. It did take a leap of faith to become involved in the rantings!

With names named surely it should give way to more responsible and honest comments and even poor humour, including intimidating avatars!!

Usually the advent of name calling is a sign that the recipient is perceived as a threat and must be ridiculed at all costs to defuse their ability, and a sign of insecurity on the part of the name caller.

I known we've all gone "off topic" but I've just read the above again and think that Jim has totally missed the point. Politicians all accept that they are fair game. When"Eggs" Murphy got off his Irn Bru Crate and stomped home in a huff, abruptly ending his Nationwide Soapbox Tour after a single egg, he lost credibility and earned the moniker. When John "Two Jags" Prescott was "egged" he gained rather a lot of respect by successfully banjoing the mullethead who threw it.Thatcher delighted in being "The Iron Lady".Salmond is more than happy to be "Wee Eck" due to his name and more than a passing resemblance to Oor Wullie's pal.Being "Tory Boy" hasn't done Haig any harm.Redwood is still called "Vulcan".Mention "The Beast of Bolsover" and the Tories tremble."Luck and Flaw" (a moniker in itself) provided polititians of a certain generation with a sense of 'having arrived' when they caricatured their likeness in latex, only to promptly lampoon them.The same politicians probably also treasure (and probably display in their offices) the "Scarfe" cartoon that is unlikely to have been complimentary.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum